Whenever actual devices come along, such as the gravity
shielding experiment of Evgeny Podkletnov and others,8 the
Establishment develops paroxysms of denial. It is going
absolutely berserk already when the “lifter” phenomenon is
brought up. It knows subliminally that it can’t explain it satisfactorily,
so it thinks it can deal with it with a few jokes from
spokesman Robert Park.

. . . to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hyped-up theory would be an
embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large,
but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly
every physics department around the world.

. . . to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hyped-up theory would be an
embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large,
but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly
every physics department around the world.

Mary, how do you think the exposition found in this link ned.ipac.caltech.edu...
corroborates the section on Lorentz transforms found in the link you provided?

So why has Einstein’s theory remained popular for so many
years? I believe there are at least five reasons. First, the alternative
theories have never been given much attention nor taught
at any university. Second, the establishmentarians have invested
a lifetime of learning in maintaining the status quo, and they
will act to protect their investment.2 (For the readers of this
magazine, there is no need to elaborate on this point.) Third,
Einstein’s theory, being rather vaguely defined and self-contradictory
by its own construction, allows some practitioners to
display an aura of elitism and hubris in their ability to manipulate
it. There is an exclusive quality to the theory—like a
country club, and that is part of its allure. . . .

Mary, you keep adding smileys to excerpts from papers that you are not capable of understanding in their technical part, i.e. specific claims of
deficiency of Einstein's theory. I posted a link and asked you about specific points of how it relates to that chapter in the "Special Selection".
So, do you have comments?

That page by Mills just strikes me as an amazing exemplar of how stupid this "theoretical foundation" is: www.blacklightpower.com...

He's desperate to dismiss the quantum-mechanical nature of the double slit experiment with electrons, by making a whole number of outlandish and
patently false assumption. First of all, there is no mathematical explanation of the characteristics of the observed density distribution, second,
it's patently false that "Since the number of electrons hitting a given position on the detector over time is proportional to the electron kinetic
energy, the intensity pattern is the square of the amplitude." This has no foundation in reality.

And of course, diffraction is readily observed with neutral particles, which really throws out this laughable argument of Mills out of the window.

The alleged proof for time-dilation is claimed to be among
the most confirmed experiments in physics. Yet a careful dissection
of these experiments reveals an equally plausible alternative
explanation, one that does not require time to be a
dependent variable.20,21

Page 102 is a good example of the stone cold nonsense that is representative of that "publication"

Contrary to what the auteur tries to ascertain, we know an incredible amount of detail about particles, their physics and decays. If he does not,
that's his problem, except he should be hiding this fact instead of exposing himself as an ignoramus. Special relativity is confirmed literally
billion times a day in experiments around the globe.

And he's stupid enough to drag gravity into the discussion of Special Relativity. Well, duh.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
That page by Mills just strikes me as an amazing exemplar of how stupid this "theoretical foundation" is: www.blacklightpower.com...

He's desperate to dismiss the quantum-mechanical nature of the double slit experiment with electrons, by making a whole number of outlandish and
patently false assumption. First of all, there is no mathematical explanation of the characteristics of the observed density distribution, second,
it's patently false that "Since the number of electrons hitting a given position on the detector over time is proportional to the electron kinetic
energy, the intensity pattern is the square of the amplitude." This has no foundation in reality.

And of course, diffraction is readily observed with neutral particles, which really throws out this laughable argument of Mills out of the window.

I read that and it looked to me like in that section, he was trying to explain how he thinks other physicists interpret the double slit
experiment.

The section you quoted from has a heading of "the classical solution", which I interpreted to mean he attributes the concepts to someone other than
himself.

I agree with your second point that his statement "Since the number of electrons hitting a given position on the detector over time is proportional to
the electron kinetic energy, the intensity pattern is the square of the amplitude." Your observation is consistent with other accounts I've read that
aside from Mills own theory not matching observation, he doesn't even seem to have a good grasp of the theories and supporting observations that he's
trying to replace.

However you lost me with your first point about "no mathematical explanation of the characteristics of the observed density distribution". My
assumption since this was under the heading "the classical solution" is that the implied mathematics would be a classical model such as the
Huygens–Fresnel principle or something similar.

I may be misreading that page, but my interpretation s that the whole page except the last sentence is an attempt to explain how the rest of the world
sees the double slit experiment and why it's a problem. Notice I said "attempt". The last sentence then links to his theory of everything which
replaces what he calls the "mysticism" of the double slit experiment aka mainstream view, with what he calls "physics" (which the mainstream calls a
seriously flawed piece of work).

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Dr. Robert L. Park about "Blacklight Power"

Listen to Mallove talk about Robert Park, author of
Voodoo
Science, in Part 6. Mallove states that Park is part of the academic/government complex that is responsible for standing in the way of the
development of new energy. He describes him as a “nitwit if there ever was one.” Not only does Park debunk cold fusion and Blacklight Power
Corporation’s work, but also that of complementary medicine. That should tell you something.

In his book, "Character Analysis" (1933), Dr. Reich detailed a biological basis for neurosis and provided a step toward the discovery of the
cosmic orgone energy.

During the years 1936-1939, Dr. Reich conducted experiments concerning the idea of airborne infection. He showed that microorganisms form
themselves from inorganic material and disintegrating organic substances. He proved where airborne germs came from and demonstrated the absurdity of
the commonly held "air germ" theory. It was during these experiments in 1939 that Dr. Reich accidentally discovered radiation particles which he
later named orgone.

An assistant had mistakenly taken the wrong container from the sterilizer and heated the substance within it to incandescence. The substance
was common ocean sand and, when cultured and inoculated on an egg and agar medium, yielded a yellow growth. When viewed under high magnification this
growth was seen as vesicles (he called them SAPA bions) that glimmered an intense blue color that, in time, would grow and then move about.

As he continued to experiment with these "bions" he noticed that when he placed live cancer cells next to them the cells would die. It was
during days of observing these phenomena that Dr. Reich came down with an extreme case of conjunctivitis and his eyes became very sensitive to light.
He noticed that it affected his eyes the most when he was looking at these vesicles through his microscope.

During the course of this work in the winter of 1939, Dr. Reich also noticed that he had developed a suntan under his clothing and he knew he
was being exposed to some type of radiation and it greatly worried him. He used a radium electroscope to test the culture tubes and it gave no
reaction. It took a few weeks for him to realize that this newly noticed radiation (that he had named orgone) was present everywhere.

Taking his SAPA bions into the darkness of his basement and waiting for two hours he noticed his hair and clothing emitted a blue glimmer and
that the room was filled with a hazy, slow-moving, gray-blue vapor.

Over time, Dr. Reich demonstrated that the orgone radiation was the same energy that the sun gave off and that the incandescing and swelling of
the sand had released this energy once again from its material state. He was forced to this conclusion by the facts before him but he admitted having
to overcome great emotional reluctance in doing so.

Further experiments showed that this ever-present orgone would be repelled by metal objects and absorbed by organic material. By making a box
with alternate layers of organic (wool) material and metal, Reich found that he could accumulate a more concentrated field of orgone. He called these
boxes "orgone accumulators" and they had a major role in his experimentation with orgone.

Dr. Reich was able to watch orgone in the various forms it would take on within an accumulator. The forms were: A bluish-gray, fog-like
formation; deeply blue-violet luminous dots or; whitish, rapid rays.

He was also able to demonstrate and measure orgone with a thermometer and an electroscope as well as with a Geiger counter.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
but didn't bother to try and photograph it?

Don't you know that there are numerous front groups, financed by foundations, which are, in turn, front groups for wealthy oligarchs, who, in the
guise of "philanthropy," "educate" the public using the internet?

Where do they get their funding from?

It has been my experience when viewing dot org websites that, in addition to their "About Us" page, they have a page detailing their source(s) for
financial support.

Does anyone know whether the organizations behind dot org websites are required or expected in any way to provide this information?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
How do you presume to know what I started with? I became a serious researcher after 9-11. One topic led to another. I am on an eclectic search for
answers for how we can bring this planet to a place of sanity.

After reading your posts on 120 pages of this thread, I don't have to make
many presumptions about what your thoughts are, as I suspect you have a pretty good idea what my thoughts are without too much presuming, at least on
the topics we've discussed here. You stated that it's just a matter of time before we have "free energy", before we have any proof of that. So I'm
saying you've started with that statement as of the time you made it, a page or two back in this thread, and that it doesn't show curiosity but a lack
of curiosity. You've posted many things but nothing you've posted supports that assertion you made that "free energy" is just a matter of time. If you
were curious you'd acknowledge that we have no proof of it, and that maybe it will be discovered, or it may NEVER be discovered if it doesn't exist.
Just to clarify, I consider Bearden's claim to be a free energy claim, but not the cold fusion claims.

The problem with your argument about how science works is your copious use of fallacies such as name-calling, ridicule, and hit-pieces coupled
with your refusal to acknowledge evidence of harassment and more serious suppression in the history of science and technology. Additionally, you
wanted this thread sent to the "Hoax" forum on page 1 because of your obsession with the role of the number 9 and the use of the word "equal."

When I say that Reich and Mallove wend mad, I don't consider that name calling, but rather my amateur diagnosis of their mental state being so
completely disconnected from reality, supported by plenty of evidence. This looks like name calling though:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Listen to Mallove talk about Robert Park, .... He describes him as a “nitwit if there ever was one.” Not only does Park debunk cold fusion and
Blacklight Power Corporation’s work, but also that of complementary medicine. That should tell you something.

What should that tell us? I
don't claim that cold fusion has been "debunked", but rather that Mills has been debunked, and cold fusion remains unproven. I don't have time to
watch videos right now, but I did get a good idea of the views of Dr. Park here: en.wikipedia.org... That says he's also
critical of the International Space station.

Regarding complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) I have this to say. It's a broad field that encompasses many things. What Park seems to be
saying is that if it's not proven by science then it can't be called science. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. My own personal view is
that some claims in CAM may actually be true even if they are unproven. I don't object to Park saying it's unscientific to say they are proven before
they are proven. I also suspect that for every CAM claim that turns out to be true after being scientifically tested, many more will turn out to be
false. Again this is the idea based in experience and common sense expressed by Lisi which also applies to new physics ideas, which is that
necessarily most turn out to be wrong and only a few turn out to be right. Based on this rationale I too would argue CAM claims fall into three
categories:

1. True and helpful,
2. Not true and thus not helpful, but not harmful either, and
3. Not true, and harmful

Even though I believe some probably fall into category 1, until it's proven in which case it loses it's "CAM" status" it might also be a #2 or a #3
and I'm not really sure which category it falls in. For example, I was taking vitamin E supplements for a while thinking they might be helpful, but
after seeing some studies showing they might be harmful, I stopped taking them. Apparently as with most things, moderation with vitamins including
vitamin E is the key, and a little bit may be good for us, but too much can be bad for us.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I read that and it looked to me like in that section, he was trying to explain how he thinks other physicists interpret the double slit experiment.

The section you quoted from has a heading of "the classical solution", which I interpreted to mean he attributes the concepts to someone other than
himself.

It means more than that, i.e. it means that the solution is not quantum-mechanical. He's steadfast in denying legitimacy to QM, which is sort of
amazing. It's also remarkable that nobody has called him on the following: if there is a state below the real ground state in the H atom, what about
other elements? Another thing is, in the chemical reactions that are described in his write-ups and Rowan reports, there is no hydrogen in the
reaction products. Think about it. There are hydrides at best. What this means is exactly the following: his "theory" of the hydrogen atom, however
nonsensical it may be, is not even applicable here at all. He needs to model the complete molecule to give the alleged process any theoretical
foundation, and that's way above his pay grade.

However you lost me with your first point about "no mathematical explanation of the characteristics of the observed density distribution". My
assumption since this was under the heading "the classical solution" is that the implied mathematics would be a classical model such as the
Huygens–Fresnel principle or something similar.

It doesn't matter what the principles are. The diffraction pattern is a well defined mathematical entity, whose characteristics can be derived from
underlying physics in both optics and quantum mechanics. To say that there are "mirror charges" does not do any of that. What's more interesting,
the screen can be made not only from metal foil, but from a dielectric material. In this case, one could assume that the diffraction pattern would
depend on the material (if one follows Mills). But that's not the case. And wait, there is more -- neutron diffraction is a wonderful phenomenon that
is well understood and used in research. There are no "mirror charges" to be assigned to the slits in that case, because neutrons are neutral. But
our village idiot Mills doesn't know any of that.

When I read some of Mills materials a while ago, they didn't seem as bad as they do now, because this time I'm paying more attention. And it's
dead, cold, absolute stupidity that I find there.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
but didn't bother to try and photograph it?

You're certain that he did not?

Since these photographs are conspicuously missing from any material I could find, I assume that this is the case. In addition, if Reich's
observations were confirmed by anyone, I'm expecting to see more photographic material detailing the behavior of "orgon" under specific conditions.
You are saying it's attracted to organics? Well, this is great, but please attach a Polaroid. You are saying metal is reflecting "orgone"? An
actual picture, please. Since it's visible as a light, please include complete spectral analysis. What, you can't do any of that? Back to the voodoo
bin, losers.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.